by Guest Writer | May 19, 2025 | Legislature, Property Taxes
Republican Wendy McKamey represents Senate District 12 in Cascade County. This editorial ran in the May 15, 2025 edition of the Cascade Courier. On May 16 Governor Greg Gianforte signed the bills discussed above into law.
OP-ED — Montanans are being crushed under the weight of skyrocketing property taxes. Longtime residents are watching their tax bill soar as wealthy out-of-staters scoop up land and inflate home values across Montana. Families, seniors, and working people across the state are pleading for relief.
This session a group of Montanans – Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals – came together to deliver meaningful property tax relief. Unfortunately, a group of Montana lawmakers stood in the way and are now actively campaigning to get Governor Gianforte to veto meaningful property tax reform for you. That group is the Montana “Freedom Caucus.”
You deserve to know their names. Barry Usher, Nelly Nicol, Jerry Schillinger, Theresa Manzella, Carl Glimm, and Bob Phalen all fought to prevent you from receiving a property tax cut. These legislators – all members of the “Freedom Caucus” – voted against cutting your property taxes from 1.35% to 0.76% on your primary residence. Instead, they wanted to offer you a token $240 rebate and call it good enough.
It’s not just them. Jeremy Trebas, Daniel Emrich, Ken Bogner, and Daniel Zolnikov all seem to want you to pay high property taxes. Jeremy Trebas wants to serve on the PSC. If he won’t protect you from high property taxes today, how can you expect him to protect you from high utility costs tomorrow?
Instead of fighting for Montana residents, these lawmakers chose to protect the pockets of wealthy nonresidents who own second homes in exclusive enclaves like the Yellowstone Club and the shores of Whitefish Lake. Every one of these legislators voted against bills that would cut tax rates on your primary residence – just so wealthy nonresidents don’t have to pay more.
That’s not conservatism. That’s not freedom. That’s protecting the elite at the expense of everyday Montanans.
It should be no surprise these legislators don’t want to cut your taxes. When it comes to protecting the taxpayer, these legislators are missing in action. All are supporters of President Matt Regier. Matt Regier wants to spend more money, grow government, rather than save you money. Matt Regier tried to get the part-time Legislature to build a $160 million dollar office building, and he has spent large sums on high-priced lawyers, new office furniture, and a fancy electronics suite.
Montana’s property tax system is broken. We need reform and Matt Regier, the “Freedom Caucus,” and Jeremy Trebas, Daniel Emrich, Ken Bogner, and Daniel Zolnikov said, “NO!”
The next time those legislators campaign on “low taxes” and “standing up for Montana,” remember they didn’t want to cut your property taxes. They wanted to stick it to you and force you to pay the same exorbitant tax rates you are paying today. When it mattered most, they stood with wealthy outsiders and fought against real property tax relief for you. Whereas I will continually consider Montanans first.
What the Funk 406
by Guest Writer | May 12, 2025 | Life, Medicaid, Republicans
Right now, Medicaid—the public health insurance program that covers over 212,000 Montanans—is under serious threat. Across the country, federal lawmakers are proposing $880 billion in Medicaid cuts. These cuts won’t just hit some abstract system or federal balance sheet—they will fall directly on working families, seniors, veterans, and kids right here in Montana.
And unfortunately, our state’s Republican leadership isn’t fighting to protect us. Instead, they’re doing what politicians so often do: playing both sides while quietly hoping someone else takes the fall.
The Truth Behind the Medicaid “Extension”
Earlier this year, the Montana Legislature passed a bill carried by Great Falls Republican, Ed Buttrey, to extend the current sunset provision for Medicaid. If you just skim the headlines, that might sound like a win. But if you’ve been paying attention to the budget language and political signals, it’s anything but.
What’s really happening is this: Montana Republicans are counting on the federal government to cut Medicaid funding. They extended Medicaid on paper, but they’re banking on D.C. to gut the program so that they don’t have to vote for those cuts themselves.
It’s a political sleight of hand letting Washington do the dirty work. Then, when Montanans lose coverage, they’ll throw up their hands and say, “Well, we tried. Blame Congress.” Don’t buy it. The reality is, if the federal match for Medicaid disappears, so does the coverage for thousands of Montanans. And the Montana Legislature has no plan to fill that gap. None.
What That Means for Real People
Medicaid is not a handout. It’s not charity. It’s a vital part of how we take care of our neighbors and ourselves when life gets hard. It’s how we ensure:
- A single mom working two part-time jobs can still take her child to the doctor.
- A retired construction worker who worked his whole life but didn’t earn enough to save isn’t bankrupted by one hospital stay.
- A veteran who served this country has access to treatment, even if their VA benefits don’t fully cover their needs.
- A pregnant woman in a rural town can receive prenatal care without driving four hours round trip.
In Montana, 71% of adults on Medicaid are working. They are cleaning our schools, and hospitals, providing day care, stocking our shelves, cooking our food, taking care of our grandparents and parents.
Political Cowardice Dressed Up as Responsibility
Montana Republicans love to talk about personal responsibility and rural values. But there’s nothing responsible about cutting healthcare for working people. There’s nothing “pro-life” about making it harder for pregnant women to access care. And there’s nothing conservative about forcing our small-town hospitals to close due to budget shortfalls.
If you want to talk about work ethic, let’s talk about the thousands of Montanans who work full-time but still don’t earn enough to afford private insurance.
If you want to talk about values, let’s talk about how much it says about a society when it leaves its most vulnerable behind.
We Deserve Better
Montanans deserve better than backdoor politics and budget games.
We deserve leaders who understand that healthcare isn’t a luxury—it’s a right. We deserve legislators who will fight for the people who put them in office, not just the ones who bankroll their campaigns. And we deserve to be told the truth—not manipulated with headlines and hollow promises.
Because the consequences are very real.
If the federal match goes away and our state leaders refuse to step up, coverage will disappear.
Medicaid is a lifeline for one in five Montanans. It’s woven into the fabric of our communities. Cutting it isn’t just bad politics; it’s a betrayal of everything we claim to stand for.
Montana Republicans are betting that we won’t notice. That we won’t care. That we’ll accept the spin.
Let’s prove them wrong.
Let’s remind them that in Montana, we take care of our own.
What You Can Do
- Pick up the phone.
- Senator Steve Daines, Great Falls Office 406-453-0148
- Senator Tim Sheehy, Great Falls Office- 406-452-9587
- Write your representatives.
- Attend a rally or town hall.
- Send an email.
- Talk to your neighbors.
- Share this blog.
Remind them that we are watching. That we vote. That we expect better from those who claim to represent us.
Jeannie Hansen is a third-generation Montanan. Along with her advocacy work, she currently ranches east of Great Falls. She is lifelong advocate with a passion for justice, dignity, and community care. Raised in Great Falls, she found her voice early—championing seniors, working families, and underserved populations since her school days. With over 15 years in social work and nonprofits, Jeannie has built a career rooted in public service, legislative advocacy, and hands-on support for those navigating complex systems like Medicaid. Her work has taken her from the halls of the Capitol to the dirt roads of rural Montana, always guided by a fierce commitment to fairness and a deep love for her home state.
This editorial is based on comments Jeannie Hansen made at a Medicare Rally organized by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in Great Falls on April 29th, 2025.
What The Funk 406 Blog
by Guest Writer | Oct 20, 2024 | Elections
WTF406 is presenting both sides of the CI-126/CI-127 ballot initiatives to help our readers make a decision this election.
What is Citizens’ Initiative 126 (CI-126)?
CI-126 will change primary elections so that all qualified candidates of all parties would appear on one single ballot in June and all voters will have the freedom to choose between them. The top four candidates would then move on to the November election, where voters would choose between them.
Voters in Montana are currently forced to choose one party’s ballot to vote in primary elections – even though they might prefer candidates from different parties for different offices. CI-126 changes that so you can vote for the candidate you like best, regardless of party.
CI-126 gives Montana voters:
- Better choices on the ballot
- More freedom to vote for the person, not the party
- More voice in every tax-payer funded election
- Greater accountability over elected officials
CI-126 is endorsed by:
- Wild Montana
- Forward Montana
- Montana Federation of Public Employees
- Montana Trial Lawyers Association
- Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana
- Montana Women Vote
- MontPIRG
- Montana AFL-CIO
- Western Native Voice Action Fund
- Northern Plains Resource Council
- Montana Alliance for Retired Americans
- SEIU 775
- Veterans for Montana Voters
- Former Governor Steve Bullock
- Former Secretary of State Mike Cooney
- Former Superintendent of Public Instruction Denise Juneau
- Former Attorney General Tim Fox
- Former Lieutenant Governor Mike Cooney
- And many more
CI-126 is a simple, common-sense change that protects our democracy and gives us more responsive and representative government. We encourage every Montana voter to vote YES on CI-126 so we have better choices, more voice, and greater accountability in our elections.
What is Citizens’ Initiative 127 (CI-127)?
CI-127 requires candidates to receive a majority vote to win a General election instead of electing candidates who simply win the largest number of votes, as is current law. This measure would ensure that candidates have to appeal to a majority of their constituents by earning the support of over 50% of voters.
Majority-winner elections lead to more responsive leaders who are more representative of the majority of Montanans. There are two mechanisms for deciding a majority winner if one candidate does not receive more than 50% of the vote: a traditional runoff election or an instant runoff election.
Majority-winner elections empower voters to hold politicians accountable and force our elected officials to focus on finding solutions that benefit a majority of citizens. We encourage voters to choose majority-winner elections and vote YES on CI-127.
-Kendra Miller and Lauren Caldwell
by Guest Writer | Oct 20, 2024 | Elections
WTF406 is presenting both sides of the CI-126/CI-127 ballot initiatives to help our readers make a decision this election.
This year’s election is fast approaching. The air waves are full of ads from candidates, drowning out news about the initiatives that are on our ballot. Voters will receive a voter information pamphlet before the election, and I encourage you to read the pros and cons of these initiatives. Two of the constitutional initiatives would drastically change our election process: CI 126 and CI 127.
CI 126 changes Montana’s long-established primary election by creating a jungle primary. Instead of the voter choosing which primary ballot they want, there will be one ballot with candidates from all eligible parties including Independents. The Top 4 vote getters will move on to the general election. The initiative leaves it up to the Legislature and governor to decide the process for how candidates get on the primary ballot. The initiative also leaves it up to the Legislature and governor to decide how to break a tie.
CI 127 changes Montana’s long-established general election rules by requiring the winning candidate to get the majority of votes. If no candidate gets the majority of the votes, the Legislature and governor will decide a process for choosing the winner.
I would be less concerned if these undefined processes weren’t left to representatives often concerned with party politics to iron out. Voters should know what we’re really getting.
In addition to the confusing processes, both initiatives deserve a clearly defined, transparent process. They are concerning for several other reasons and won’t adequately address today’s political divisiveness, which is the intended goal.
Already over the last couple of Legislative Sessions, several bills that changed our election process were passed. However, most of these bills were challenged on the basis that they were not allowed by our Constitution, and the Supreme Court agreed, by overturning the bills. It is alarming to think that, if these initiatives pass, a Legislature that tried to create unconstitutional election processes would design the outcome of our election process.
These initiatives also create several other problems. If 126 passes and 127 doesn’t we could have an election where only 26% of the voters select our leader. It also provides lots of opportunities for shenanigans. The GOP party has been notorious for getting someone to file as a Green party candidate to steal votes from the Democrat candidate. If 126 passes they will recruit 1 or 2 of their own to run as a Democrat to steal votes from the legitimate Democrat candidate. Yes, I know the Democratic could do the same thing. If 127 passes, how will we decide the winner if one candidate doesn’t get more than 50% of the vote? We don’t know because the legislature and governor get to decide. Will it be rank choice, or will it be an expensive, time-consuming runoff election or will the legislature/governor decide the winner? Either way will most likely have less voters choose the winner than the current system. Runoff elections generally have lower turnouts so less voters could decide the winner. After election day who really wants to have more days of campaign ads, calls and fundraising besides the loser. Please vote no on 126 and 127.
Some have tried to suggest that this new election process would alleviate the divisiveness we are experiencing in politics today. This process doesn’t get to the root of the problem. A major cause of this divisiveness is the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by President Reagan. The Fairness Doctrine required news outlets to report both sides of an issue truthfully. Soon after it was repealed, Fox Entertainment changed its name to FOX News and began misleading listeners with sensationalized, one-sided false narratives. Many other networks started “news” programs to compete for airtime, and the term “fake news” became part of our lives. About the same time, Texas Congressman Tom Delay started a nationwide movement to gerrymander districts. He eventually went to jail, but we still suffer the consequences today.
Following the Delay playbook, the 1990 redistricting committee in Montana redrew our legislative districts. The result created numerous “safe” districts for both Democrats and Republicans. These safe districts almost guarantee that one party (or the other) wins that district. Today, we still have several safe districts for both parties. This has allowed extreme candidates from each party to win an election. Once elected, they don’t have to govern because they know they will be reelected by their party in their “safe” district. In the last few elections, the Tea Party has successfully primaried moderate Republicans. The Tea Party’s antigovernment philosophy has created havoc and gridlock. The moderate Republicans have viewed the jungle primary and majority vote as a solution to this problem.
The solution to divisiveness would be better if it focused at the root of the problems. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine requiring the “news” to report both sides of an issue truthfully. Eliminate the gerrymandered districts by recreating swing districts that will require candidates to appeal to all voters and not just their party.
-Walter Schweitzer
by Guest Writer | Sep 15, 2024 | City
There is an ongoing debate about whether or not to fully fund our public library, and a wide range of reasons have been proposed as to why the library’s funding should remain as the voters intended. I wanted to speak toward my own primary reason for 1) voting to support the library levy, and 2) why I continue to support fully funding the library.
First, my background. I moved to Great Falls in 2020 to complete my internship for my counseling degree, and currently I am a licensed professional counselor working in outpatient mental health. My wife and I rented for a year and then bought a house north of downtown. We became involved in volunteering and advocating for our unhoused neighbors in Great Falls.
With other like minded individuals, we founded Housed Great Falls, a grassroots nonprofit dedicated toward the long-term goal of building a transitional tiny house community for the unhoused. We soon discovered an immediate need that we could step into to provide warmth and safety that was not getting fully met in our community. It will come as a shock to no one who has lived here for more than a year, that our winters are brutal, but it might shock people to know that many people are still on the street year-round in Great Falls.
The Rescue Mission offers emergency cold weather services on days below freezing, officially opening their doors at 10 PM (though on particularly cold days they have opened earlier). Their restrictions are typically lower for this cold weather emergency service, and “most” unhoused people can receive this service. However, what we had found was that between the times that places like the Library and St. Vincent De Paul Angel Room closed, and when the Mission opened, people were still exposed to dangerous temperatures for periods of time that can still do a world of harm to a body. We organized cold-weather drop-in to fill this gap, hosted at the United Methodist Church and, then this past winter, at First English/Helping Hands; providing a hot meal and a safe, warm location between 5:30-9:30 PM on below freezing nights.
What we found was that, in general, when people were warm, safe, and fed, they were cooperative, polite, and grateful. We had few negative interactions with a demographic that many people find “scary” or “dangerous.” We had perhaps four calls to emergency services over a winter of being open 70 nights. Consider the number of calls that would have been made if people were not there. When people were offered a safe and accepting space to exist, they were not someplace else trespassing, drinking, panhandling, stealing, etc… They, and the community as a whole, were SAFER.
This brings me back to the Library. The Library is a safe, warm, and accepting location. It is not a shelter or warming center, nor should it be, but it is a PUBLIC SPACE that is open to ANYONE who can give basic respect to the others around them. The Library providing this public space for people IS part of our public safety. When people, particularly the unhoused, are at the Library they are by default NOT doing the things that the public complains about them doing.
My general experience, both from working in mental health and volunteering with the unhoused, is that, when people are given respect and dignity, they respond in a positive manner. There are exceptions of course, but this has seemed to be just that, the exception. Our experience running the cold weather drop-in for two winters now showed this; a “rough” and “dangerous” population was calm and respectful, because they were treated how we would want to be treated.
I voted primarily for the Library levy so that they could extend their hours to be open every day of the week, and later each day; in large part so that community members with nowhere else to go would have a safe and warm location to be. But the library benefits so many more people than just the unhoused or downtrodden; though I think there we see the largest impacts. But even if it only impacted them, it still has a positive impact on my life. And I strongly believe that treating people with dignity and respect, and helping them to meet their basic needs, will always be a better long term option than fining, arresting, and jailing them; not to mention being far less expensive.
The idea of public safety based solely on more police is a fantasy, and an Orwellian one at that. Public safety might very well involve police and jails (perhaps in smaller quantities than we have now), but it also involves solving the issues at the root of the problem. Simply hiring more police and building more jails deals with the symptoms, but not the root cause of the problem. While the Library is also not a silver bullet, it does reach closer to the root cause of achieving a more lasting and holistic safety for our community.
–Michael Yegerlehner
